1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Rape Up, While Murders Down in 2004

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, October 17, 2005; 10:18 AM



WASHINGTON -- Murders across the United States fell for the first time in five years, while rapes increased slightly last year, the FBI reported Monday.

Overall, the number of violent crimes, which also include aggravated assaults and robberies, fell by 1.2 percent last year. Property crimes _ burglaries, larceny/theft and car theft _ dropped 1.1 percent in 2004, compared to 2003.

There were 16,137 murders in the United States in 2004, the last full year for which statistics are available. That was about 350 fewer than in 2003, according to the FBI data. The decrease is the first since 1999, although smaller than what the FBI reported in June. Chicago was largely responsible for the drop, recording 150 fewer murders in 2004 than in 2003.

The number of rapes, however, has increased in three of the past four years, according to the FBI data. In all, rapes increased by .8 percent to 94,635 rapes, or about 750 more than in 2003.

Rapes are up nearly 5 percent since 2000, while murders have increased by 3.5 percent, FBI data show.

At the same time, the rates of all violent crimes, measured as the number of crimes for every 100,000 people, have dropped over that same period. Indeed, the crime rate is at a 30-year low, government data have shown.

Despite the historical trend, the FBI included a "crime clock" in its report that shows a violent crime is committed every 23.1 seconds. A murder occurs roughly every half-hour, according to the clock.





While it is hard to to read to much into these stats two things occured to me. The first is that the nurder rate is down due in part to the fact that more and more states are becoming enlightened and allowing citizens to carry. The second thing is that I read recently women are much less likely to carry than a man is. I wonder if that has anything to do with the increase in rapes. Just food for thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
magilla (shout out to a fellow Jerseyan!) - I think one of the confounding issues is that allowing concealed carry may increase ownership, and increasing ownership may increase the liklihood of murders between family members, etc. I, for one, don't want everyone to be able to carry, there are too many crazies! Allowing law abiding citizens to carry is another thing, and I think NJ should consider it, but I'm not sure if a relatively small decrease (though it's pretty huge for those 350 that weren't killed!) in the murder rate is related to the CCW laws...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
All wrong

Don't you know that the decrease in violent crimes is due to the wide spread availability and legalization of abortions in the US 30 years ago? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,686 Posts
With 16,137 killed, a drop of 350 (2%) sounds more like a normal fluctuation, certainly not a trend. Except that 150 of that is just from one city, Chicago.

They might be doing something right up there. Or maybe a gang war finally got resolved, hard to say.

But there certainly seems room for improvement overall, in the US. 16K is a lot. That's almost one-third of the number of people killed in car accidents !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
>I, for one, don't want everyone to be able to
> carry, there are too many crazies!

The "crazies" will carry whether it's legal or not. They're crazy. Same goes for criminals. The only group affected by gun regulations are decent, law abiding, citizens, and they aren't part of the problem.
Marty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
RDaneel said:
magilla (shout out to a fellow Jerseyan!) - I think one of the confounding issues is that allowing concealed carry may increase ownership, and increasing ownership may increase the liklihood of murders between family members, etc. I, for one, don't want everyone to be able to carry, there are too many crazies! Allowing law abiding citizens to carry is another thing, and I think NJ should consider it, but I'm not sure if a relatively small decrease (though it's pretty huge for those 350 that weren't killed!) in the murder rate is related to the CCW laws...


Uh, stay in jersey please.
Jersey does not conform to the nations laws. Don't buy into the "they are protecting me cra*"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
bumm said:
The "crazies" will carry whether it's legal or not. They're crazy. Same goes for criminals. The only group affected by gun regulations are decent, law abiding, citizens, and they aren't part of the problem.
Marty
Its funny how some people still dont understand that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Is there any way to determine if the actual number of rapes has increased versus victims becoming more courageous in reporting such crime?

It’s safe to assume that the murder and other violent crime stats track reasonably close to the actual number of crimes committed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Just a hunch, but maybe there are more date rapes happening, which would explain the rise in that number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
1911onr said:
Don't you know that the decrease in violent crimes is due to the wide spread availability and legalization of abortions in the US 30 years ago? ;)
Someone else read "Freakonomics" too, huh? :)
Good read! :rock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
RDaneel said:
...I, for one, don't want everyone to be able to carry, there are too many crazies! ...
Here in lies the problem. I too don't like the idea of certain people carrying a weapon BUT (and this is a big but) I DON'T GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION. The constitution on the United States of America PROTECTS our right to keep and bare arms. It does not allow us to deny this right to protect anyone. There are dangerous people in this country expressing dangerous radical opinions on a daily basis yet no one wants to take their right to free speech away. Our RTKBA is just as precious and protected as the right to free speech. The Constitution does not allow us to trade freedom for security.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Less murder more rapes - maybe the bad guys have decided to become lovers not fighters which is a rather insensitive remark I will admit.

You watch Kurt the anti gun crowd will jump on the Chicago stat like flies to dead meat. No guns allowed in Chicago - murder rate drops. Stats are like magic you can use them to prove the world is flat I suspect.

Best to advance the argument that gun ownership and crime rates are not related IMHO. Crime is driven by many social and economic reasons none of which has anything to do with gun ownership. The anti gun crowd will never admit it or even uderstand the concept.

Up here the Liberals refuse to lock bad guys up for anything but the most offensive crimes. Result bad guys just keep re-offending. Liberals seem to have a god given right to be wrong!

Stay Safe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,832 Posts
robertbank said:
You watch Kurt the anti gun crowd will jump on the Chicago stat like flies to dead meat. No guns allowed in Chicago - murder rate drops. Stats are like magic you can use them to prove the world is flat I suspect.
Well, Chicago's gun laws have been draconian by any U.S. standards but Washington D.C.'s (and conincidentally--or not--Chicago's murder rate has been very high by any standards but Washington D.C.'s) for decades. Even Mayor Daley would have trouble claiming that Chicago's ridiculous gun laws suddenly caused a dramatic downturn in crime, when the laws haven't changed in so long (about the only appreciable recent change I can think of is the expiration of the federal AWB--and the anti-gun crowd isn't going to bring that up in this discussion).
It wouldn't surprise me if more permissive gun laws (CCW chief among them) have had some positive deterrent effect on crime. I can't count myself in the John Lott camp, and claim it's a major factor (I imagine that the factor you've often mentioned--the aging of the baby boomers, has a good deal more to do with it). Then again, Mary Roush (sp?) says I'm an idiot :biglaugh: .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
How about this: it's all moot if convicted felons and other violent criminals actually served their time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Forstr

That my friend would require the Liberals to admit a failed policy amd lord knows that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I once sat on a jury and heard that the defendant had been convicted 10 times in a space of 10 years, receiving each time two years sentences for robbery. HIs little bout with the law should have been five times but each time he got out for good behavior then promptly went back into business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
robertbank said:
I once sat on a jury and heard that the defendant had been convicted 10 times in a space of 10 years, receiving each time two years sentences for robbery.
In the US the jury isnt allowed to know that information. It might bias them towards convicting knowing that the person in front of them is a career criminal.

I recently served on a jury, and was even the foreman. It was a pretty interesting experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
What do these stats tell me? Rape Up, While Murders Down in 2004. Sometimes, the answer is just right in front of you.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
110 Posts
Mus said:
In the US the jury isnt allowed to know that information.

That is not always true.

In Federal Court, it is inadmissible if offered only to establish a criminal disposition. It is admissible if the acts are relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character or disposition to commit the crime charged (i.e., motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common plan or scheme, knowledge or absence of mistake).

An example: Husband is charged with shooting his spouse and claims the gun was discharged by accident while cleaning it. The prosecution may introduce evidence showing that Husband stabbed Wife six months ago. Goes to show it was not an accident.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Mus

Same in Canada. Came out after our verdict and was part of the Crown's case for a longer sentence. Didn't work, got two years less a day. As a matter of interest I too was the jury foreman and agree it is an interesting experience. Our legal systems are virtually identical save and except the natural evolvement since we left the confines of England. In that regard I believe jury trials save for murder cases are a thing of the past in the UK.

Incidently our system does not allow jurors to discuss jury room deliberations after trials nor does it allow press to pursue jurors after a trial either.

Stay Safe
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top